The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1887-11-03

the petitioners relied upon any tnlhB "ohtaihSu
in those amendments they could have no stapn'
inp in his court. The fourteenth amendment
was equally foreign TO any Fight, privilege or
immunity here claimed by the petitioners. Ihe
record would show that the complaint was nor
that the State had made or was enforcing Ia"
which deprived the petitioners OF any OF the
privileges or iinmuhites guaranteed by that
section but tiiat they were deprived OF rights by
an erroneous construct on OF the law placed |
upon 1t by the trial court o. the Stnie. Petl |
TONERS did not tlaiiu IN the Supreme Court OF /
the State that ts illinois ast OF 1874 was fe-
pugnaat to the consutn4scn. treaties OF lawsot
the United states, nor that nc authority a |
the cotft was exercised under ~ oai ifft |
the act was constitutional and valid, unc the |
court exercised its power In Violation o the
law Petitioners were tried in the eosr'a o.
the State under the laws OF the state, ana thas
constituted due process OF law. IL was hot
material that this or another court might have
ruled differently under the law. Due process
oflaw meant "law OF the lnnd.'
Attorney General Hunt then turned his Az
tention to the constitutional provision that
mo State shall deny 10 any person the equal
| protection OF the laws" and reeited the
circumstances under which and the pur-
poses for which II was adopted. me
last section OF this amendment he SAID,
| provides that Congress should have power
| 10 enforce by appropriate legislation inc
| provisions OF this article He would submit 10
the court that the equal protection oil the
| laws" and the privileges and immunities con-
templated by this amendment were oniy tnose
| for whose enforcement Congress had provided
| by subsequent Legislation, and, having acted,
! Congress- has. exhausted the subject until II
4 chooses to again take II up.
Turning to the composition OF the jury in the
trial court. the Attorney. General said that ne
did not see how the personnel OF the Jury
which tried petitioners in this case could prop
| orix ba. cuh IN the court considered Dy
liz in the present proceeding. This inquiry
1 must be made us to the constitutionality OF the
Jury law Of the State OF Illinois, and not as 10
how u State eourt may have construed thatlaw.
The record showed, he believed, that on the
challenge OF one Juror a suggestion was made
by one OF tho counsel for the prison
ers that there was provision in the
constitution OF Illinois, as well as In the
constitution OF the United States, guar
anteeing to every person trial by
an impartial jury. The person at whose chat-
lenge that suggestion WIS made did not finally
sit in the jury that tried the case, He would
submit that In order to give the parties
standing in court, the suggestion OF
objection must have been made with
regard to juror who actually tried the
case or that by reason of the exhaustion OF the
peremptory challenge the petitioners were
compelled to accept an incompetent Juror and
were thereby irreparably damaged. The ques-
tion was never raised with regard TO any juror
who did actually sit in that case.
colloauy arose as to whether any eonsti--
tutional question was raised upon any member
of the jury accepted, impaneled and sworn.
Mr.. Hunt denied that such was the case, and
the record was appealed to ut the suggestion OF
Chief Justice Waite, us the opposing counsel
insisted there was such question The Chief
Justice directed that all the parts OF the record
relating to the question thus sed should be
printed and submitted 70 the court to-day
Attorney General Hunt resuming, said that
the jury law of the State OF Illinois was not at
tucked by counsel ON the other side in the State
Supreme Court They stated expressly (read-
ing from the proceedings) that "we have not
thought il necessary TO attack the constitutions
ality OF the law because II may be given con-
struction which would make 1t unobjectiona-
BILE"
"The contention, l supposed was" said the
Attorney.Gener 'that Judge Gary had given
to the law construction in violation OF the
constitution believe it to BIO well set
tied and established that this court will
, rot review the decision OF the Supreme
, Court OF State as to the construction
TO be gwen to its own constitution and
its own laws. The jury law OF Illinois has been
the common law all over the United States,
, and always The provisions of the law object
ed to in this case have been in the ute-booK
, OF the State for thirteen years. There are sub
/ stantially The same laws in Arkansas Colorado
and Nebraska, where they have been sustained
, by the highest State courts.
The Acknowledgement then called attention
= iorclbly to the fact that recent changes in the
jury laws OF the State all had for their purpose
! and object the procurement OF q better and
q more intelligent class of men a:
: jurors Is it possible that whenever
a la law is enacted In any STATE
!, which recognizes the changed coalition oi
a aflairs-a law which is intended TO adapt the
| y. aha -
I Federal question is raised: Then the convic
: ton of any man in State court raises Fed
a | ernl question, and under the unlimited pro
: visions OF the fourteenth amendment tina
h question can be brought to this court for re
n view He hoped that the court would maturel.
a consider the far-reaching consequences OF tn
construct on which the petitioners desired 1
have gwen TO the fourteenth amendment.
= AS to the alleged unreasonable search AM
: Sc Zure'' 1t is said that after the prisoners ma
y been arrested their desks were broken open b.
= the police and papers and bombs, etc. wer
.. .. taken out without u warrant The Attorney
~ General said he would like to know how Grim
:, inal's instruments of crime could legally b.
:. taken from him. He knew of nGlprocess b.
=, which It could be done If they wee his own
u The question for the court however, was no
=, y How was possession OF these things obtainedf
10 but rather what do they proven
Mr. Hunt cited very recent decision OF
70 the point Mr.. Tucker had pressed with niue
y ability the point that the State Of Ill
~ nois had violated the sacred right
y, OF the accused in searching withor
. warrants their desks and trunks, and usin
\ documents there found as evidence agains
~ them on the trial. The Attornoy-General n
~ tortcd that in the case OF Frederick NJ. Ke
y the Supreme Court year or two ago d
W cided adversely on a right far higher and MOI
" " sacred than that of having ones desk pr
!. ~ tected from violent search. In the ker case,
~ ~ was not piece OF evidence, but 1t wa
~ the prisoner himself who was
VI legged 10 have been procured and brougl
into court without the usual form
u of law, and the lower court was upheld by u
y Supreme Court of the United States in takr
~ y the pos tion that so long as the prisoner WI
VI within the jurisdiction OF the court the cou
',' would not inquire how he came there.
sh The Acknowledgement then took up the cas-
" OF the prisoners Fielden and Spies, and sa
that he understood IL would be urged by cou
he sci on the other side that the
NJ being foreigners Fielden an HI
.. gllshman and Spies Il German-were rr
~ tected by the treaties between the Unite
w States aud their respective governments; th
IN they should have immunity because the treati'
in provided that citizens of England and German
ne iiying in the United States should have all u
70 rights and privileges guaranteed by law TO OF
" zens OF the United S3ates ~ the time the tire
I, ties We're ratified
nc The Chief Justice-In what respect is II sa
M that this violates the citizenship Of Great Br
~ ninl
&c General Butler-They were to have nll q
ny mne privileges Of Americans ut the date oi q
~. treaties, and among those privegesw we contcl
~ was trial by jury under the laws then In fort
NC No laws could be passed to change their cont
'r' tion under the organic Iaw-the highest law.
Attorney-General Hunt replied that II Il
ol- werc so, then the prisoners, without being 9
mt liens were privileged persons, above the la
Ily of the State which they set at defiance.
Nv At this point the hour for the adiournme
of the court arrived, and further argume
OF was postponed until to-day.
!. ~ s-
ID; MIR. Hammond Wanted.
a. TOPEKA, Kan, Oct 2S.-A requisitlon
~, ~ the Governor OF Illinois was issued Thu